http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog
enShankerBloghttps://feedburner.google.comOur Request For Simple Data From The District Of Columbiahttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/our-request-simple-data-district-columbia
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>For our 2015 <a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/teacherdiversity">report</a>, “The State of Teacher Diversity in American Education,” we requested data on teacher race and ethnicity between roughly 2000 and 2012 from nine of the largest school districts in the nation: Boston; Chicago; Cleveland; District of Columbia; Los Angeles; New Orleans; New York; Philadelphia; and San Francisco.</p>
<p>Only one of these districts failed to provide us with data that we could use to conduct our analysis: the District of Columbia.</p>
<p>To be clear, the data we requested are public record. Most of the eight other districts to which we submitted requests complied in a timely fashion. A couple of them took months to fill the request, and required a little follow up. But all of them gave us what we needed. We were actually able to get <em>charter</em> school data for virtually all of these eight cities (usually through the state).</p>
<p><em>Even New Orleans</em>, which, during the years for which we requested data, was destroyed by a hurricane and underwent a comprehensive restructuring of its entire school system, provided the data.</p>
<p>But not DC.</p>
</section>
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:00:00 +0000mdicarlo5078 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgHow Books Inspire Action: The Citizen Power Projecthttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/how-books-inspire-action-citizen-power-project-0
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><em>Our guest author today is Marissa Wasseluk, Digital Communication Manager for non-profit FirstBook.</em></p>
<p>All too often, young people feel they don’t have the power to fix problems in their communities How can books inspire students to take action and become engaged citizens?</p>
<p>Earlier this year, First Book, along with our partners the American Federation of Teachers and the Albert Shanker Institute, presented educators nationwide with a challenge: identify an issue and a civic engagement project important to their students, school or community. We then asked for proposals on how, with the support of books and resources from First Book, their students could take action to address that issue and show their students that they have a voice and the ability to make positive changes happen.</p>
<p>We called this challenge The Citizen Power Activation Project. Funded by the Aspen Institute’s Pluribus Project, 15 proposals - five each from elementary, middle and high schools - would be chosen to receive a collection of special resources to help them implement their projects and a $500 grant for use on the First Book Marketplace.</p>
<p>More than 920 proposals were received.</p>
<p> </section>
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 05:00:00 +0000mdicarlo5068 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgNew Evidence On Teaching Quality And The Achievement Gaphttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/new-evidence-teaching-quality-and-achievement-gap
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>It is an extensively documented fact that low-income students score more poorly on standardized tests than do their higher income peers. This so-called “achievement gap” has persisted for generations and is still one of the most significant challenges confronting the American educational system.</p>
<p>Some people tend to overstate -- while others tend to understate -- the degree to which this gap is attributable to differences in teacher (and school) effectiveness between lower and higher income students (with income usually defined in terms of students’ eligibility for subsidized lunch assistance). As discussed below, the evidence thus far suggests that lower income students are a more likely than higher income students to have less “effective” teachers -- with effectiveness defined in terms of the ability to help raise student test scores, or value-added, although the magnitude of these discrepancies varies by study. There are also some compelling theories as to the possible mechanisms behind these (often modest) discrepancies, most notably the fact that schools in low-income neighborhoods tend to have fewer resources, as well as more trouble recruiting and retaining highly qualified, experienced teachers.</p>
<p>The Mathematica Policy Research organization recently released a very large, very important <a href="https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/do-low-income-students-have-equal-access-to-effective-teachers-evidence-from-26-districts">study</a> that addresses these issues directly. It focuses on shedding additional light on the <em>magnitude</em> of any measurable differences in access to effective teaching among students of different incomes (the “Effective Teaching Gap”), as well as the way in which hiring, mobility, and retention might contribute to these gaps. The analysis uses data on teachers in grades 4-8 or 6-8 (depending on data availability) over five years (2008-09 to 2012-13) in 26 districts across the nation.</p>
</section>
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:00:00 +0000mdicarlo5053 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgWhen Our Teachers Learn, Our Students Learnhttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/when-our-teachers-learn-our-students-learn
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><em>Our guest authors today are Mark D. Benigni, Ed. D., Superintendent of the Meriden Public Schools in Connecticut and co-chairperson of the Connecticut Association of Urban Superintendents, as well as Erin Benham, President of the Meriden Federation of Teachers and a member of the Connecticut State Department of Education Board of Directors. The authors seek to understand how teacher learning improves student learning outcomes. </em></p>
<p>Our students’ success and ability to graduate college and career ready from our public schools must be society's primary educational objective. The challenge lies in how we create neighborhood public schools where student learning and teacher learning are valued and supported. How do we assure our students' and staff's satisfaction and growth? And, in essence, how do we create schools where students and staff want to be?</p>
<p>Around the country, some districts are opting for market-based reforms such as privately supported charter schools or online school options. In Meriden we took a different approach and decided to collaborate as a springboard for innovation and improvement. The school district and teachers' union have been strong partners for almost seven years. Such trust and partnership has made possible the reforms that will be described in the rest of this post.</p>
<p>Collaboration facilitated development of a weekly early-release day for Professional Learning Communities to meet. During this time, teachers review individual student academic data with their data teams. However, the paucity of non-academic information about students emerged as an important area of improvement. We launched a three-phased approach to address climate and culture in our schools. Our climate suite includes: a <em>School Climate Survey</em> completed by students, staff, and families; a <em>Getting to Know You</em> <em>Survey</em> completed by students in the spring, with results shared in the fall with receiving teachers; and a <em>MPS Cares</em> online portal for students to request assistance and support.</p>
</section>
Tue, 01 Nov 2016 04:00:00 +0000equintero5048 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgDo Subgroup Accountability Measures Affect School Ratings Systems?http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/do-subgroup-accountability-measures-affect-school-ratings-systems
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>The school accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) institutionalized a focus on the (test-based) performance of student subgroups, such as English language learners, racial and ethnic groups, and students eligible for free- and reduced-price lunch (FRL). The idea was to shine a spotlight on achievement gaps in the U.S., and to hold schools accountable for serving all students.</p>
<p>This was a laudable goal, and disaggregating data by student subgroups is a wise policy, as there is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/04/14/fairfax-success-masks-gap-for-black-students-span-classbankheadtest-scores-in-county-lag-behind-states-poorer-areasspan/79027b31-5c10-4e25-bc33-7fa50e465540/">much to learn</a> from such comparisons. Unfortunately, however, NCLB also institutionalized the poor measurement of school performance, and so-called subgroup accountability was not immune. The problem, which we’ve discussed here many times, is that test-based accountability systems in the U.S. tend to interpret how highly students score as a measure of school performance, when it is largely a function of factors out of schools' control, such as student background. In other words, schools (or subgroups of those students) may exhibit higher average scores or proficiency rates simply because their students entered the schools at higher levels, regardless of how effective the school may be in raising scores. Although NCLB’s successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), perpetuates many of these misinterpretations, it still represents some limited progress, as it encourages greater reliance on growth-based measures, which look at how quickly students progress while they attend a school, rather than how highly they score in any given year (see <a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/resources-testing-and-school-accountability">here</a> for more on this).</p>
<p>Yet this evolution, slow though it may be, presents a somewhat unique challenge for the inclusion of subgroup-based measures in formal school accountability systems. That is, if we stipulate that growth model estimates are the best available <em>test-based</em> way to measure school (rather than student) performance, how should accountability systems apply these models to traditionally lower scoring student subgroups?</p>
</section>
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 04:00:00 +0000mdicarlo5028 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgSocial And Emotional Skills In School: Pivoting From Accountability To Developmenthttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/social-and-emotional-skills-school-pivoting-accountability-development
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><em>Our guest authors today are David Blazar and Matthew A. Kraft. Blazar is a Lecturer on Education and Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Education and Kraft is an Assistant Professor of Education and Economics at Brown University.</em></p>
<p>With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015, Congress required that states select a nonacademic indicator with which to assess students’ success in school and, in turn, hold schools accountable. We believe that broadening what it means to be a successful student and school is good policy. Students learn and grow in multifaceted ways, only some of which are captured by standardized achievement tests. Measures such as students’ effort, initiative, and behavior also are key indicators for their long-term success (see <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639983/w16381_2.pdf?sequence=5">here</a>). Thus, by gathering data on students’ progress on a range of measures, both academic and what we refer to as “social and emotional” development, teachers and school leaders may be better equipped to help students improve in these areas.</p>
<p>In the months following the passage of ESSA, questions about use of social and emotional skills in accountability systems have dominated the debate. What measures should districts use? Is it appropriate to use these measures in high-stakes setting if they are susceptible to potential biases and can be easily coached or manipulated? Many others have written about this important topic before us (see, for example, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/dont-grade-schools-on-grit.html?_r=0">here</a>, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/04/07/dont-grade-schools-on-character-skills/">here</a>, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/should-non-cognitive-skills-be-included-in-school-accountability-systems-preliminary-evidence-from-californias-core-districts/">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/hard-thinking-on-soft-skills/">here</a>). Like some of them, we agree that including measures of students’ social and emotional development in accountability systems, even with very small associated weights, could serve as a strong signal that schools and educators should value and attend to developing these skills in the classroom. We also recognize concerns about the use of measures that really were developed for research purposes rather than large-scale high-stakes testing with repeated administrations.</p>
</section>
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:00:00 +0000equintero5018 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgA Few Reactions To The Final Teacher Preparation Accountability Regulationshttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/few-reactions-final-teacher-preparation-accountability-regulations
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>The U.S. Department of Education (USED) has just released the long-anticipated <a href="http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-releases-final-teacher-preparation-regulations?utm_content=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_name=&amp;utm_source=govdelivery&amp;utm_term=">final regulations</a> for teacher preparation (TP) program accountability. These regulations will guide states, which are required to design their own systems for assessing TP program performance for full implementation in 2018-19. The earliest year in which stakes (namely, eligibility for federal grants) will be attached to the ratings is 2021-22.</p>
<p>Among the provisions receiving attention is the softening of the requirement regarding the use of test-based productivity measures, such as value-added and other growth models (see <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775713000241">Goldhaber et al. 2013</a>; <a href="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EDFP_a_00110#.WAebdzKZN-V">Mihaly et al. 2013</a>; <a href="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EDFP_a_00172?journalCode=edfp#.WAebSjKZN-U">Koedel et al. 2015</a>). Specifically, the final regulations allow greater “flexibility” in how and how much these indicators must count toward final ratings. For the reasons that Cory Koedel and I laid out in this <a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/do-we-know-how-hold-teacher-preparation-programs-accountable">piece</a> (and I will not reiterate here), this is a wise decision. Although it is possible that value-added estimates will eventually play a significant role in these TP program accountability systems, the USED timeline provides insufficient time for the requisite empirical groundwork.</p>
<p>Yet this does not resolve the issues facing those who must design these systems, since putting partial brakes on value-added for TP programs also puts increased focus on the other measures which might be used to gauge program performance. And, as is often the case with formal accountability systems, the non-test-based bench is not particularly deep.</p>
</section>
Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:00:00 +0000mdicarlo5003 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgBuilding A Professional Network Of Rural Educators From Scratchhttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/building-professional-network-rural-educators-scratch
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><em>Our guest author today is Danette Parsley, </em><a href="http://educationnorthwest.org/about-us/staff/danette-parsley"><em>Chief Program Officer at Education Northwest</em></a><em>,</em><em> where she leads initiatives like the Northwest Rural Innovation and Student Engagement Network. To learn more about this work, check out </em><a href="http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/pje/pje_volume_90_issue_2_2015/hargreaves_parsley_cox.php"><em>Designing Rural School Improvement Networks: Aspirations and Actualities</em></a> <em>and </em><a href="http://www.battelleforkids.org/learning-hub/learning-hub-item/generating-opportunity-and-prosperity-the-promise-of-rural-education-collaboratives"><em>Generating Opportunity and Prosperity: The Promise of Rural Education Collaboratives</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Small rural schools draw from a deep well of assets to positively impact student experiences and outcomes. They tend to serve as central hubs within their communities, and their small size often facilitates close staff relationships, which in turn can enable moving innovative ideas into action. At the same time, rural schools face a number of challenges that differ from those of their urban and suburban counterparts.</p>
<p>First, it’s extremely difficult to draw high-quality teachers to geographically disconnected, rural communities—and, when they do come, it’s hard to get them to stay. Second, it’s a challenge to connect teachers across remote and rural communities so they can share instructional practices and professional development. One way to address the challenges facing rural schools, while leveraging their inherent assets, is to establish professional networks of teacher leaders aimed at providing support that helps their colleagues succeed and encourages them to stay.</p>
</section>
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:00:00 +0000equintero4998 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgEconomic Segregation In New York City Schoolshttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/economic-segregation-new-york-city-schools
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>Although student segregation by race and ethnicity is well documented in U.S. public schools, the body of evidence on the related outcome of <em>economic</em> school segregation (e.g., by income) is considerably smaller (<a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152">Reardon and Owens 2014</a>).</p>
<p>In general, economic segregation of students is increasing nationally over the past few decades, both between districts and between schools (<a href="https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/owens%20reardon%20jencks%20school%20income%20segregation%20july2014.pdf">Owens et al. 2014</a>). It is inevitable that these aggregate trends vary widely by state, metropolitan area, and district. We were curious as to the situation in New York City, the nation’s largest district, but were unable to find any NYC-specific results, particularly results that included different types of segregation measures.</p>
<p>We therefore decided to take a quick look ourselves, using data from the NYC Department of Education. The very brief analysis below uses eligibility for subsidized lunch (free and reduced-price lunch, or FRL) as a (very) rough income proxy, and segregation is measured between district schools only (charters are not included) from 2002 to 2015. In the graph below, we characterize within-district, between-school segregation using two different and very common approaches, exposure and dissimilarity.</p>
</section>
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:00:00 +0000mdicarlo4988 at http://www.shankerinstitute.orgThe Details Matter In Teacher Evaluationshttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/details-matter-teacher-evaluations
<section class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>Throughout the process of reforming teacher evaluation systems over the past 5-10 years, perhaps the most contentious, discussed issue was the importance, or weights, assigned to different components. Specifically, there was a great deal of debate about the proper weight to assign to test-based teacher productivity measures, such estimates from value-added and other growth models.</p>
<p>Some commentators, particularly those more enthusiastic about test-based accountability, argued that the new teacher evaluations somehow were not meaningful unless value-added or growth model estimates constituted a substantial proportion of teachers’ final evaluation ratings. Skeptics of test-based accountability, on the other hand, tended toward a rather different viewpoint – that test-based teacher performance measures should play little or no role in the new evaluation systems. Moreover, virtually all of the discussion of these systems’ results, once they were finally implemented, focused on the distribution of final ratings, <a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/ineffective-rating-fetish">particularly</a> the proportions of teachers rated “ineffective.”</p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/steinberg_kraft_2016_design_of_teacher_eval_systems_wp.pdf">working paper</a> by Matthew Steinberg and Matthew Kraft directly addresses and informs this debate. Their very straightforward analysis shows just how consequential these weighting decisions, as well as choices of where to set the cutpoints for final rating categories (e.g., how many points does a teacher need to be given an “effective” versus “ineffective” rating), are for the distribution of final ratings.</p>
</section>
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:00:00 +0000mdicarlo4983 at http://www.shankerinstitute.org